ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 21 ส.ค. 2024
- There are three accounts of Paul’s conversion to Christianity found in the Book of Acts. They’re all a little bit different and because of that some critics have cried foul. Comparing them, skeptical Biblical scholar Bart Ehrman writes: “the three accounts differ in numerous contradictory details…Clearly we are dealing with a narrative that has been molded for literary reasons, not with some kind of disinterested historical report.”
Ouch. If Luke is a sloppy historian simply spinning some religious yarn then there’s a problem. If he can’t seem to keep from contradicting himself while telling and re-telling Paul’s conversion, this would cast doubt on if he ever traveled with or even knew Paul very well at all. So let’s look at Bart’s complaints one by one and see if he has a good case against Luke.
We actually find that on close inspection Acts 9, 22, and 26, the variations line up with what we know about Paul’s circumstances quite nicely, as I’ve touched on a bit already. There’s nothing contrived in the differences, which bolsters our confidence in Luke’s accuracy.
Blog post: isjesusalive.c...
Help support me: Patreon / isjesusalive . You can also do a one-time donation at paypal.me/isjesusalive
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @testifyapologetics
Get merch: is-jesus-alive...
Visit my blog: isjesusalive.com
When I give my testimony to teens, I mention that I was eighteen when I got saved.
When I give my testimony to people who are far from home, I mention that I was far from home when I got saved.
When I give my testimony to members of the military, I mention that I was in the USAF when I got saved.
I don't _change_ the facts. I only withhold or present facts based on who is listening. Every good storyteller does that.
Excellent illustration!
@@TestifyApologetics to God be the glory! :)
I didnt think there were good arguments for christianity’s truth before I found your channel. I am truly thankful for your educational content.
Wow. Praise God. Thanks!
Paul a compromiser? All things to all men...
You are quickly becoming one of my favorite apologists, just keep up with these smart, sharp, and stylish videos, and you will be at the top of my chart. I find that textual critics do not utilize common sense with issues like you pointed out. In this video and others, you have brought out this point well. I am not saying they are not smart or needed, but they seem to create the problems they want to find more than they uncover them.
Keep up the great work.
if it's good it's grace
But he lied about Acts 9 and related the contradiction to a possible meaning of heard vs understood. The word of contradiction there is "ἀκούω", its the root word for our modern English word for "AUDIBLE sound" or "acoustics". Its even used in verse 4, prior to verse 7 with the same meaning. The re routing to Luke 6 is another falacy , as the only variance in the English is now "hear", not understood. That would mean the Greek text would have to have recorded " "συνίημι" but it doesn't. He glossed over that a direct variance between the two is also found in Luke 8:10, and not once confused with one another.
Then he denounced the second contradiction as a matter of idiomatic prevalence, but based on what? It wasnt a coded dream. Its was pure conjecture on the part of Testify"
Then used more conjecture to address the direct missionary messaging from "Jesus" in the third account, which previously belonged to Ananias. He also didnt touch on the fact that Paul also neglected to incorporate the two previous inquiries by "Jesus". But proclaimed victory over Ehrman none the less.
"Testify" then takes more liberty in assuming possibilitys = evidence while further assuming that because Luke was detailed else where, it automatically assumes that contradiction = cohesiveness. How absurd.
The last 4 mins of his apologetics attempt to marry the contradictions to an issue of audience adaptation, which is not only more conjecture in itself, but flys in the face of basic logic. The fact Paul now claims that Jesus spoke directly to him of his missionary goal and "Testifys" re vamped logic is an act to smooth a lie. In no circumstance is that a trait of any one whos been charged with authority from God.
If Paul adapted to audiences as " Testify" claims, he certainly missed the opprotunity to do so when he was ordered struck by the High Priest in Acts 23:2. Which is another caveat in the issue of Pauls claims. A self purported "pharisee of pharisees" who doesnt even recognize the same man he abundantly claimed to work for previosly. Theres a reason why the false apostle mentioned in Revelation was mirrored to Balaam.
Something worth mentioning is that Greek word translated voice (phone) means both "sound" and "voice." In the passages in question there is a distinction made in the Greek text, which uses the accusative case (phonen) in Acts 9:4 and 22:9, but the genitive case in Acts 9:7 and 22:7. Thus, in 9:4 it says that Paul heard a "phonen" (accusative) but in 9:7 that his companions were hearing the "phones" (genitive). In 22:7, Paul says that he heard a "phones" (genitive), but that his companions did not hear the "phonen" (accusative). The accusative/genitive distinction may be intended to convey that Paul hears the sound of a voice, but his companions only hear a sound, but not a voice. In both cases the distinction occurs within a few verses and must therefore be intentional and needs to be explained.
I wish I'd seen your response earlier; it would have saved me time! Your genitive/accusative distinction is great; I just think that you can go further. As I said in my post, based on my brief word study, it seems that ἀκούω + gen. carries the meaning of "hearing a sound," while ἀκούω + acc. carries the meaning of "hearing the content of a sound." The companions heard a "voice," but Paul alone heard the content of the voice that was speaking. I think this is a more satisfying explanation, and it totally fits with what you're saying.
You guys are so smart
@@JoshuaReifsteck It does in certain contexts, but in this case it is genitive because it is describing the sound "of him who was speaking", but the sentence structure is setting up a contrast of Saw but did not Hear. Seeing, but not Understanding is not a comparable contrast. If your interpretation were to be more likely, it would be originally written as Heard but did not Understand, or Saw and Heard, but did not Understand.
Dude should pin your comment. I had been wading thru baseless speculation touted as fact for about an hour.
If your looking for contradictions your gonna find contradictions, if your looking for Old Testament references your going to find them. Bart is acting on the assumption the Bible is wrong. Great opportunity to dive into the scriptures though
Could someone also say then that if you’re already certain the Bible doesn’t contain errors or contradictions then you’ll never see them? For those people there will always be a plausible explanation for reconciling the text because they unable to consider the contrary.
The problem with Bart Ehrman is that while he may have left the fundamentalist church, he did not abandon his fundamentalist mindset.
His old view was 'fundamentalist assumptions are the correct method for reading scripture and they prove Christianity is true', his current view is 'fundamentalist assumptions are the correct way to read scripture and they prove Christianity is false'
He is still a fundamentalist as his style of argument shows
Well said
@@mbselsing the way I see it, if there is a reasonable reconciliation then it ceases to be a contradiction.
A contradiction are 2 irreconcilable statements, married bachelor/square circle type.-
@@DavidTextle the key in my mind is how someone defines reasonable. I was replying to a comment that said if you want to see contradictions then you’ll see contradictions… which I think is true. But I think the opposite is also true, if you don’t want to see contradictions then the proposed explanation is always reasonable. I think it comes back to how you approach the text.
If I argue that the accounts of Jesus being anointed with oil are contradictory, then someone who doesn’t believe the Bible has contradictions will think it’s reasonable to explain that away by saying Jesus was anointed 2 or 3 times, which I believe is an unreasonable take away from the challenge of harmonizing those passages
Best apologetics channel!! Blessings from Argentina 🇦🇷🇦🇷🇦🇷
Your channel is amazing brother. You’re one of the best. Just keep posting consistently as usual. You’re gonna grow big
What I love about these videos is that not only do you debunk these comically ridiculous supposed contradictions, but you take the time to actually positively show how they interlock very well.
I’m a simple man. I see a new video from testify, I click on it.
Likewise
Same
There is actually 4 accounts.
Acts 26:14 where he recounts his story to king Agrippa.
@MrEVAQ the standard Greek lexicon BDAG lists on page 38 that ακουω, or "to hear" can be translated in a variety of ways, including "to understand," even citing one such use as Acts 22:9. That means the most trusted lexicon among Greek scholars the world over disagrees with you. Something to consider. As @testify mentions, the reason for the different translation is down to context (so he did indeed answer your question, before you asked even). The first telling recounts events as they occurred, the subsequent account in 22:9 elaborates on the event. Simple storytelling, we all do it in normal speech, and the same phenomenon happens constantly across Scripture and other narratives. Case closed. Sorry to say, it looks like you've made a mountain out of a molehill, which is exactly Testify's charge to Ehrman.
2:34 _"...the verse stood speechless is "possibly" only an idiomatic expression that suggests they were frozen in their tracks, so to speak, not that they were standing up the entire time..."_
Right!!! So when things aren't lining up as you'd like then just revert to "possibly"!
I don't think the bible ever intended its original readers to have to guess when it is using idiomatic phrases - I think it was meant to be understood _exactly_ as written! The authors just made some mistakes and 2000 years later desperate apologists attempt to harmonize those mistakes using modern standards!
I think Bart Ehrman is more accurate!
They didn't intend audience to guess, phrases used were common for that day. Just as I just wrote for that day, and you got what I am saying, but 2000 years later people from different culture might have hard time guessing what I meant.
They saw the light ,only Paul gets blinded.
At the transfiguration.
Matthew 17:2 Yeshua was bright as the sun, nobody got blinded.
Matthew 23;13 35 seven woes to the pharisees , blind is mentioned 6 times
First miracles Paul's do is cause a man to be blinded.
Acts 13;8
First miracle on an man Yeshua did was heal a man blinded from birth.
Jonh 9:1-12
Matthew 15;14 let them alone; they be blind leaders of the blind.
And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.
Luke is not the problem, you can't whitewash what is written,. The account is there so we can judge by ourselves using Deuteronomy 13. And the fate will be according to our choices.
The ambiguity between hear /didn't hear is even more easily cleared up by Matt 13:13 "Hearing, they hear not nor do they understand." So "hear" obviously has idiomatic meanings. Are you hearing me?
Yes
These videos are really great! More than worth every penny of my “Patreonage”. I really like the style and I am learning a lot from them. Thank you. 👍
Glad to hear it! If it's good it's grace!
Why would Bart Ehrman or anyone else expect Luke to write an objective historical report. Luke was a physician and very much involved in Christianity?
Do we reject autobiographies of musicians, politicians, or scientists because they are not objective historical reports?
Agreed. In fact, the category of "objective historical report" *didn't even exist* when Luke wrote Acts.
@@UBEUILLBEME That's the thing about history: you get what you get. And you can decide to reject Homer or Tacitus as historically inaccurate, or you can recognize that life (and history) is really very much more interesting than that, and learn something.
@@UBEUILLBEME There are plenty of other options... you can misrepresent reality and belittle people with experience for the sake of the dopamine.
@@UBEUILLBEME or you can just deny the supernatural based on your own lack of experience : when others state that God contacted them in the Bible and Christians have equally had this contact by God through Jesus and the Holy Spirit for 2, 000 years now and with 2.1 million Christians.
Or Jesus was the greatest magician that ever lived !
I have a question. Why did Jesus conceal himself from Paul’s companions? If Jesus had everyone who traveled with Paul, see him, more people would’ve been saved that day. 🤔
See Acts from Luke:
If Paul goes, then...
Acts 13:2, 9-12
[2]As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.
[9]Then Saul, (who also is called Paul,) filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him,
[10]And said, O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?
[11]And now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon thee, and thou shalt be blind, not seeing the sun for a season. And immediately there fell on him a mist and a darkness; and he went about seeking some to lead him by the hand.
[12]Then the deputy, when he saw what was done, believed, being astonished at the doctrine of the Lord.
Acts 19:6
[6]And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
And, there is also the road to Damascus story.
Isn't Luke also connected to Paul?!
You presented 3 possible responses to Ehrman, yet called them strikes. Proved nothing but made your claims as though they were undeniable. That’s arguing in bad faith
So deny them?
brother, which software are you using for editing video?
Videoscribe
For goodness sake, what sort of a literalistic mind has that guy Bart got? I have given my testimony numerous times in the 55 years I have been a Christian. Does he think I repeat it exactly the same like a tape recorder? It’s really childish criticism from a guy who spends too much time at a desk.
Dear TH-camr: Please juxtapose 1 Cor 8 chapter with Rev 2 chapter. Then, make Paul sound as if what he said there is true. No Paul apologist seems to be able to do this and it seems to refute Paul...And, if you refute Paul, then most of the NT(including Luke and Acts go right along with him).
This is an excellent, brief reply to Ehrman's critique. I wonder if Bart himself is not guilty of this charge when talknid about the same subject to different audiences.
Highly reliable doesn't totally exclude literary genius ...
You're not letting ol' Bart off the hook huh 👍🏻
🔥 Praise The LORD! ⚡️✝️🕊💓
Very insightful. Thanks Erik! Blessings
Glad it was helpful!
These "contradictions" are like pawing jabs and they never really have any steam but if you don't counter and land a punch then many people assumed the pawed jab landed or hurt.
Can you answer please:
1.Paul was sent by Jerusalem high priest to arrest christians in Demascus how could he have done this its another kingdom! did he have power to arrest in another kingdom how???
Just wondering, where does the picture of Saul at 1:30 come from? Is it from a children’s book?
I just found it on my Canva subscription.
@@TestifyApologetics Ah, cool. It looks like it's not from a book but a collection of various one-off Biblical character drawings.
I guess I'll never know why Paul seems to be wearing hi-vis, but they're nice images at least..
Canva looks really cool actually. Looks like a whole presentation solution? I'm guessing you mainly just use it as an artwork source though, if you have the other software for videos.
I use Videoscribe for the videos, but when I can't find an illustration in the program itself I check out Canva.
Thank you Keepupthegood work
How can I explain Paul’s trip to Arabia to a skeptic?
What do you mean?
Did you explain Paul’s trip to Arabia? Did he go to Damascus or Arabia first? I may have missed it.
I wrote about it here: isjesusalive.com/is-bart-ehrman-right-when-he-says-acts-is-historically-unreliable/
Thanks
To be honest,the verses do contradict..just be real man😂💯
You know the 100 emoji is what convinced me that you're right.
Bart Ehrman: scourge of high school literature teachers, probably.
Great video!
Could it be said that in a possible “deleted scene”, the tribune interrupts Paul after 22:9 and a short conversation takes place:
- Just a moment Paul: do you mean your companions didn’t perceive a voice, or that they perceived it but couldn’t understand it?
- The latter: they perceived a voice but couldn’t understand it.
- Ah sorry, I assumed the former. Carry on.
Man, some of Bart Ehrman's "biblical contractions" arguments are reeally silly and can be solved by simple reading of context, the whole text/book and a little bit of common sense
🙏💖🙏💖🙏
Embarrassing analysis, you interprete the words like you want and simply claiming it isn’t really meant what is written in words, that’s pure blasphemy. There tons of arguments that show Paul was never a recognized but self anointed apostle, your poor denial beyond facts will be downfall!
You are reaching. Just stop it man.
You know what? Now I'm just gonna reach even harder.
@@TestifyApologetics well, that is what you should do if you want to be taken serious and prove your point, because what you presented in this video was weak and disapounting.
Make sure you come better than this next time.
I'm sorry I've disappointed you. Maybe McDonalds' is hiring.
@@TestifyApologetics just like your video, that was really WEAK. Smdh.
@@TestifyApologetics I'm certain how you respond is Godly! Of course I'm kidding.
How can anyone take you serious? Be the adult next time.
👍🏻
Testify! With due respect--you apparently FAILED in your "Intiial" rebut to Bart Erhman's discrepancy (which i share in that particular view!) If the Greek word Means "Understood" as opposed to just an "Audible" reference--Then, Obviously, That same Greek word & "Meaning" would pertain to Both. Acts 9 & Acts 22!
Thus, in Both cases--"Understood/Understand" the "Voice" would Apply! Thus, Luke is asserting in *Acts 9:7 That Saul's companions "Understood" the "Voice" according to the use of the "Meaning" of That Greek word! WHEREAS, in Acts 22:9--the supposed same Author claims the companions did NOT "Understand" the "Voice! There lies Still the discrepancy between Act's 9:7 & Act's 22:9! On the one hand Luke records They ( the companions) DID "Understand" the "Voice" (Acts 9:7) & on the other hand They (said companions) did NOT "Understand" the "Voice" (Acts 22:9)! Again, according to the "Meaning" of the Greek word(s)--"Hear/Heard" you, yourself put forth!
Second, in *Act 9:7 as Luke cites (based again, on the Meaning of That Greek word you posit!) They (Saul's companions) "Heard" (hence, "Understood") the "Voice" of Jesus--the Proverbial question IS--WHY Is there No mention/ evidence whatsoever of Any of Them being Converted--right then & there along with Saul?!? (Nor, afterwards) Was It Unimportant to Jesus to "Save" Them also, rather than leaving Them to their own devices?!? Especially, considering that They were in league with Saul in his zealous campaign to route out, arrest & bring Punishments to those new found followers of Jesus!
Please Explain!
This video was great. I never noticed how Paul is pictured as carefully selecting his words based on who he's speaking to. When it's Jewish, he brings up Gentiles as little as possible. And when it's to Agrippa he doesn't find it necessary to do this. When speaking to Jews he tells them about Ananias' good reputation as a Jew, whereas he doesn't with Agrippa.
I've come to appreciate these small details that you point out that piece everything together.